6 ms·

Unfortunately, there have been eight attempts to give the Palestinians their own state and its been rejected every time. Can we have a source for that claim? I

Unfortunately, there have been eight attempts to give the Palestinians their own state and its been rejected every time. Can we have a source for that claim? I do not know how you would arrive at the number eight and how any offer would qualify as giving the Palestinians all they asked for. The Oslo process was probably the best shot but did not even come close to resolving the conflict. A lot of the contentious issue were just deferred to be figured out within five years and that simply never happened.

burningChrome 2y ago
Sorry, my bad. Its actually 5, not 8. https://lawandsocietymagazine.com/how-palestine-rejected-offer-to-have-its-own-state-5-times-in-the-past/ https://lawandsocietymagazine.com/how-palestine-rejected-off... 1st Rejection - The suggested split was heavily in favor of the Arabs. The British offered them 80% of the disputed territory, the Jews the remaining 20%. Yet, despite the tiny size of their proposed state, the Jews voted to accept this offer. But the Arabs rejected it and resumed their violent rebellion. 2nd Rejection - Ten years later, in 1947, the British asked the United Nations to find a new solution to the continuing tensions. Like the Peal Commission, the UN decided that the best way to resolve the conflict was to divide the land. In November 1947, the UN voted to create two states. Again, the Jews accepted the offer and again, the Arabs rejected it. Only this time, they did so by launching an all-out war. Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria joined the conflict. But they failed. Israel won the war and got on with the business of building a new nation. Most of the land set aside by the UN for an Arab state, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, became occupied territory. Occupied not by Israel, but by Jordan. 3rd Rejection - 20 years later, in 1967, the Arabs led this time by Egypt and joined by Syria and Jordan, once again sought to destroy the Jewish state. The 1967 conflict, known as the Six-Day War, ended in a stunning victory for Israel. Jerusalem and the West Bank, as well as the area known as the Gaza Strip, fell into Israel’s hands. The government split over what to do with this new territory. Half wanted to return the West Bank to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt in exchange for peace. The other half wanted to give it to the region’s Arabs, who had begun referring to themselves as the Palestinians, in the hope that they would ultimately build their own state there. Neither initiative got very far. A few months later, the Arab League met in Sudan and issued its infamous three-NOs, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel. Again, a two-state solution was dismissed by the Arabs. 4th Rejection - In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak met at Camp David, with Palestinian Liberation Organization Chairman Nasser Arafat, to conclude a new two-state plan. Barak offered Arafat a Palestinian state in all of Gaza, and 94% of the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capital. But the Palestinian leader rejected the offer. In the words of U.S. President Bill Clinton, “Arafat was here 14 days and said no to everything.” Instead, the Palestinians launched a bloody wave of suicide bombings that killed over 1,000 Israelis and maimed thousands more, on buses, in wedding halls, and in pizza parlors. 5th Rejection - In 2008, Israel tried yet again. Prime Minister Ehud Omar went even further than Ehud Barak had, expanding the peace offer to include additional land to sweeten the deal. Like his predecessor, the new Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, turned the deal down.
- b112 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - danbruc 2y ago
    Spoiler alert - it is not 100 percent completely true, not even close.
    - b112 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - danbruc 2y ago
        Sure, I have no doubt that there are a lot of reasonable people that wish to settle the conflict and that have proposed ideas to reach that goal. But if I sit down and write a peace agreement, that is worth nothing, and if does not get implemented, that is not an rejection. Israel could act unilaterally, they could decide to withdraw from the Westbank and then just do it, no need to make an offer or agreement and have it accepted by the Palestinians. The obvious drawback of that is that you have no idea how it will be received by the other side, will they be satisfied and the conflict ends or will they keep fighting because they are not satisfied? So you probably want an agreement between both parties that codifies what both parties will and will not do if accepted. With that it is no longer about accepting an offer but reaching an agreement. If your offer is good enough, it might become an agreement without further negotiation, but as you want to offer as little as possible while getting as much as possible, this seems unlikely to happen. There will be a back and forth of offers and counteroffers and they will all be rejected until you reach an agreement that is acceptable by both parties or until you get stuck because of irreconcilable differences. But even if you reach an agreement at the negotiation table, that does not mean you have succeeded. The agreement must also be accepted by the affected people on both sides and you have to be able to implement it. Agreeing to stop attacks is worth nothing if the people performing the attacks do not support the agreement and keep fighting and you do not have sufficient power to prevent this. Long story short, what I want to say is that making an offer and complaining about getting it rejected does not make much sense. If you can act unilaterally, just skip the offer and do it, if both parties have to be involved, you have to reach an agreement and getting offers rejected during the negotiations is an expected part of the process. And unless one side has completely unreasonable demands, a failure to reach an agreement can not easily be blamed on one side alone, both parties have the ability to move their position towards the other side.

burningChrome 2y ago

Sorry, my bad. Its actually 5, not 8. https://lawandsocietymagazine.com/how-palestine-rejected-offer-to-have-its-own-state-5-times-in-the-past/ https://lawandsocietymagazine.com/how-palestine-rejected-off... 1st Rejection - The suggested split was heavily in favor of the Arabs. The British offered them 80% of the disputed territory, the Jews the remaining 20%. Yet, despite the tiny size of their proposed state, the Jews voted to accept this offer. But the Arabs rejected it and resumed their violent rebellion. 2nd Rejection - Ten years later, in 1947, the British asked the United Nations to find a new solution to the continuing tensions. Like the Peal Commission, the UN decided that the best way to resolve the conflict was to divide the land. In November 1947, the UN voted to create two states. Again, the Jews accepted the offer and again, the Arabs rejected it. Only this time, they did so by launching an all-out war. Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria joined the conflict. But they failed. Israel won the war and got on with the business of building a new nation. Most of the land set aside by the UN for an Arab state, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, became occupied territory. Occupied not by Israel, but by Jordan. 3rd Rejection - 20 years later, in 1967, the Arabs led this time by Egypt and joined by Syria and Jordan, once again sought to destroy the Jewish state. The 1967 conflict, known as the Six-Day War, ended in a stunning victory for Israel. Jerusalem and the West Bank, as well as the area known as the Gaza Strip, fell into Israel’s hands. The government split over what to do with this new territory. Half wanted to return the West Bank to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt in exchange for peace. The other half wanted to give it to the region’s Arabs, who had begun referring to themselves as the Palestinians, in the hope that they would ultimately build their own state there. Neither initiative got very far. A few months later, the Arab League met in Sudan and issued its infamous three-NOs, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel. Again, a two-state solution was dismissed by the Arabs. 4th Rejection - In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak met at Camp David, with Palestinian Liberation Organization Chairman Nasser Arafat, to conclude a new two-state plan. Barak offered Arafat a Palestinian state in all of Gaza, and 94% of the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capital. But the Palestinian leader rejected the offer. In the words of U.S. President Bill Clinton, “Arafat was here 14 days and said no to everything.” Instead, the Palestinians launched a bloody wave of suicide bombings that killed over 1,000 Israelis and maimed thousands more, on buses, in wedding halls, and in pizza parlors. 5th Rejection - In 2008, Israel tried yet again. Prime Minister Ehud Omar went even further than Ehud Barak had, expanding the peace offer to include additional land to sweeten the deal. Like his predecessor, the new Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, turned the deal down.

b112 2y ago
[flagged]
- danbruc 2y ago
  Spoiler alert - it is not 100 percent completely true, not even close.
  - b112 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - danbruc 2y ago
      Sure, I have no doubt that there are a lot of reasonable people that wish to settle the conflict and that have proposed ideas to reach that goal. But if I sit down and write a peace agreement, that is worth nothing, and if does not get implemented, that is not an rejection. Israel could act unilaterally, they could decide to withdraw from the Westbank and then just do it, no need to make an offer or agreement and have it accepted by the Palestinians. The obvious drawback of that is that you have no idea how it will be received by the other side, will they be satisfied and the conflict ends or will they keep fighting because they are not satisfied? So you probably want an agreement between both parties that codifies what both parties will and will not do if accepted. With that it is no longer about accepting an offer but reaching an agreement. If your offer is good enough, it might become an agreement without further negotiation, but as you want to offer as little as possible while getting as much as possible, this seems unlikely to happen. There will be a back and forth of offers and counteroffers and they will all be rejected until you reach an agreement that is acceptable by both parties or until you get stuck because of irreconcilable differences. But even if you reach an agreement at the negotiation table, that does not mean you have succeeded. The agreement must also be accepted by the affected people on both sides and you have to be able to implement it. Agreeing to stop attacks is worth nothing if the people performing the attacks do not support the agreement and keep fighting and you do not have sufficient power to prevent this. Long story short, what I want to say is that making an offer and complaining about getting it rejected does not make much sense. If you can act unilaterally, just skip the offer and do it, if both parties have to be involved, you have to reach an agreement and getting offers rejected during the negotiations is an expected part of the process. And unless one side has completely unreasonable demands, a failure to reach an agreement can not easily be blamed on one side alone, both parties have the ability to move their position towards the other side.